The NBA lockout, does anyone care?

I forgot there even was a lockout.

So I guess that would mean my answer is "no".

 

I care, and I miss it.

As expected, I am siding with the owners on this one. Guaranteed contracts are stupid and shouldn't be allowed. In addition, I believe the business model has changed dramatically in almost all sports and players trying to hang on to the old methods will eventually doom them. Considering how short the carear of a basketball player is, the fact that they are willing to waste a year of it is even stupider.

 

Nobody here seems to care much. Go the Breakers!

 

Meh, I always thought those guys got paid way too much for throwing a ball into a hoop anyway. Maybe it's better that they take a break. It will cut down on some of the traffic jams near the arenas.

Then again, this is my general sentiment towards the player salaries of really any professional sport. I think I must be like the only guy on planet earth who derives absolutely no pleasure from watching a bunch of people who I don't know or care about kicking/dribbling/hitting/throwing a ball around. The fact that they can become multi-multi millionaires in the process is utterly incomprehensible to me.

 

First point, I really don't care right now. Football has always been my favorite sport, and because I really only have time to watch sporting events on the weekends, I wouldn't be watching much basketball until around February anyway.

That said, I can't say I'm on either the players or the owners side in this. For starters, I don't necessarily have a problem with superstars making the big money. Let's take Dwayne Wade as an example (and yes, I'm deliberately avoiding lightning rods such as LeBron and Kobe, but I largely feel the same way about both of them too). It isn't a problem when a superstar like Wade makes $16M per year. When you consider the revenue he brings in ticket sales, jersey sales, and other random team memorabilia, his actual salary out of the owner's pocket is a lot less. I doubt it's sufficient to cover his salary, but he doesn't just cost money, he also brings in money. You then have to consider that having him on the team increases the chances you'll make the playoffs, so even more tickets, concessions, etc.

So while I can justify someone like Wade making the big bucks, I also see that players like Atawn Jamison and Brandon Roy each make $15M. Or that Andre Iguadala makes $13M. Those are the problem contracts. Those guys aren't putting more butts in seats, nor are they doing anything else to generate a lot of other revenue. So I can see why some owners are none too pleased that they are spending that kind of money on those players. On the other hand, no one put a gun to the owners' collective heads and made them sign guys who are the 3rd best player on their team for contracts north of $10M. What were the players supposed to do? Say, "Oh, no - this is way too much. I'm not worth anywhere near this. Redo the contract with half the money before I sign." The owners are asking to be saved from themselves.

Snook does bring up a good point about guaranteed contracts. The way football does it is that if a guy is vastly under-performing his contract, you can cut him. (Even if someone suffers a career-ending injury, you still owe him the money on his contract for the rest of that year, but if he's in year 3 of a 5 year deal, you're not still on the hook for years 4 and 5.) And yet, in football, even though the owners are not saddled with guaranteed contracts, there's very few bad contracts out there.

A quick internet search tells you all you need to know. The Tom Bradys of the world are making are making the big bucks. (Brady's contract this year is worth $13.2M.) The RBs and WRs, who are necessary parts to enable Brady to be the player he is, are well compensated, but no where near the level of Brady. Look at the other play makers. Welker makes $4.1M and Green-Elis makes $1.8M. They also have a few good players who contribute but aren't the stars: Gronkowski makes $900,000, Hernandez makes $650,000 and Woodhead makes $700,000. Looking through the salary figures the only obvious bad contract they have is Ochocinco (also $4.1M), and with the way he's played this year, he won't be back in New England next year.

So if NFL owners can figure out a way to pay the superstars the most money, the good players less, and the role players less than that, then there's no reason why NBA owners, who I assume possess a similar level of business acumen, cannot. I feel the reason you don't see a general outcry from the fans is because neither side is fully in the right.

One last point, and I'm going to go back to what Snook referred to - the error the players are making is twofold: 1) Given how short NBA careers are, there's no way for the players to make back the money they would have earned this year if they end up losing this season, no matter what kind of deal they end of signing. 2) The players have absolutely no leverage if half the owners are operating in the red. There's no incentive for the owners to sign a deal that will cause them to continue losing money - they would rather not play the games than suffer a loss by keeping the current system. Then again, you don't need me to tell you that chances are most NBA players do not possess a level of business acumen similar to the owners, given how so many of them are broke a few years after their careers end.

 

Actually, I think that baseball is the one remaining sport where you can still get reasonably priced seats. I went to a few games this past year at Camden Yards (where the Orioles play) and unless you want exceptional seats, the prices are still fairly reasonable. Upper deck seats cost about the same as the admission to a movie theater, and even somewhat decent mid-level seats can be had for about $30 each. Field box takes the price to $50 in the outfield, $65 in the infield. The best seats in the house - field box, directly behind home plate, are $90, although I've never actually sat there.

The highest priced tickets for baseball are generally less than where the seating starts for football and basketball. You can't sniff even an upper level ticket at most football stadiums for under $100 (I only have direct experience with Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington, but I imagine it's the same everywhere), and while I haven't been to an NBA game in about a decade, even then the seats were about $50 for a decent ticket. I can only imagine that the price has increased substantially since then.

 

Well, not only was I not initially aware that there even was a lockout, I wasn't aware until I read dmc's post above that it's over (or at least I assume it's over). Outside of Toronto (which I believe has an NBA team), I don't think there's much interest in NBA in Canada.

 

I (still) don't understand why the trade was shot down even after reading about it, and having it explained by people who know more about the NBA than I do. I had forgotten that the Hornets are presently owned by the league, and as such, the league, through Stern, has the right to over-ride certain business decisions. Unless it turns out that they get a better offer down the road (it looks like the Clippers are now trying to trade for CP3), it makes no sense. Paul is not coming back to the Hornets next year, so IMO, it makes sense to trade him this year and get something for him than letting him walk next year.

 

That was because Odom threw a hissy-fit after news of the trade came out. He never went back to practice this weekend, stating, "I'm not going to a place where I'm not wanted." Grow the f--- up Odom. This was a business decision. If you can't see how having Paul is a bigger benefit to the Lakers than having you, then your intellectual capacity is lower than the unbelievable low expectations I had set for you.

 

Odom didn't want out of LA, period. Hooking up with a Kardashian, living the spot-light.... he won't get that exposure anywhere else and that type of exposure leads to a career after basketball. But ususally only for the LA/NY atheletes. I see his point. He's thinking of his future.

 

Blake and CP3 - you have a team right there. Paul has been mum about re-signing with them, but part of the deal was Paul agreeing to pick up his player option for next year. So at a minimum he's a Clipper this year and next. One thing I found a little surprising is that the Clippers have said that they plan to put Billups and Paul on the floor together as their starting guards, which is a little strange, as I thought they were both point guards. So there really isn't going to be a 2 guard - are they both 1.5 guards?

 

Soccer is even cheaper. I went to MLS Cup 2011 here in LA and paid about $85 dollars after taxes and fees.

 

How good of a seat is that though? When I said baseball is cheaper, I meant overall. Your $85 ticket is only cheaper than a comparable baseball ticket I referred to if it's in the class of "best seat in the house".

I meant what I said about a ticket to a baseball game being cheaper than going to the movies if you sit in the upper deck. I haven't looked at the prices this year, but last year an upper deck ticket to weekday (or night) games was just $8. On the weekend, it went up to $10.